Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4.8

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#821

Post by willtemperley »

NiloCK wrote: post #77

A rambling comment: I think this is the first time we've had a third minor version bump on a frontier Anthropic model. (I count the 0.5s as major here, because they've been issued non-sequentially and also corresponded to massive capability leaps, eg, Sonnet 3.5, Opus 4.5). So now the Opus 4.5 family has successors 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8, each posting fairly modest claimed gains. My own experience w/ 4.6 and 4.7 are that…

I'm here to complain about the churn.

I feel like I get to know a model in the human sense of understanding a personality. Yesterday I knew 4.6 extended, today it's different, there's multiple "token budget" levels. I just want 4.6 extended back as it was, I was getting on well with it / them.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#822

Post by bwhiting2356 »

NiloCK wrote: post #77

A rambling comment: I think this is the first time we've had a third minor version bump on a frontier Anthropic model. (I count the 0.5s as major here, because they've been issued non-sequentially and also corresponded to massive capability leaps, eg, Sonnet 3.5, Opus 4.5). So now the Opus 4.5 family has successors 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8, each posting fairly modest claimed gains. My own experience w/ 4.6 and 4.7 are that…

the churn is... a version bump to the same api? If you want to compare you can write some evals.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#823

Post by viking123 »

root-parent wrote: post #696
NiloCK wrote: post #77

A rambling comment: I think this is the first time we've had a third minor version bump on a frontier Anthropic model. (I count the 0.5s as major here, because they've been issued non-sequentially and also corresponded to massive capability leaps, eg, Sonnet 3.5, Opus 4.5). So now the Opus 4.5 family has successors 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8, each posting fairly modest claimed gains. My own experience w/ 4.6 and 4.7 are that…

ChatGPT 5.5 is consistently the much better model and by a large margin. How do I know? Because when pushing both to generate code or in independent chats to analyze projects, 5.5 will consistently find all the bugs that Claude does not find, and when challenged, Claude does agree those bugs were there. And my findings match those. When from a blank start asking Claude to analyze project A and Project B,. Clause will…

5.5 is much better than any Anthropic model. I hate both companies with passion but the Anthropic shills here are in overdrive mode. On top of it, it's cheaper.

Greetings to the Anthropic office good sirs btw.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#824

Post by lionkor »

willtemperley wrote: post #821
NiloCK wrote: post #77

A rambling comment: I think this is the first time we've had a third minor version bump on a frontier Anthropic model. (I count the 0.5s as major here, because they've been issued non-sequentially and also corresponded to massive capability leaps, eg, Sonnet 3.5, Opus 4.5). So now the Opus 4.5 family has successors 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8, each posting fairly modest claimed gains. My own experience w/ 4.6 and 4.7 are that…

I'm here to complain about the churn. I feel like I get to know a model in the human sense of understanding a personality. Yesterday I knew 4.6 extended, today it's different, there's multiple "token budget" levels. I just want 4.6 extended back as it was, I was getting on well with it / them.

Humanizing this technology seems like a step in the wrong direction.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#825

Post by viking123 »

eshack94 wrote: post #571

The Claude Pro subscription is basically useless at this point, in terms of usage limits with respect to the settings required to achieve actual useful output.

Meanwhile with 20 bucks a month for gpt plus, you can get shit ton of usage out of gpt 5.5 on codex if you know what you are doing and not just letting it swallow the whole project like an idiot.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#826

Post by lionkor »

rphv wrote: post #771
jclay wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It almost appears as if the code was minified. The variable names are short and formatting looks like it's written to minimize whitespace. Did it write it in this compact format all on it's own?

"Readability by humans" may no longer be as important as it once was.

Maybe it would benefit Anthropic if AI generated code worked, but wasn't readable by humans. That's a nice moat.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#827

Post by gandalfthepink »

NiloCK wrote: post #77

A rambling comment: I think this is the first time we've had a third minor version bump on a frontier Anthropic model. (I count the 0.5s as major here, because they've been issued non-sequentially and also corresponded to massive capability leaps, eg, Sonnet 3.5, Opus 4.5). So now the Opus 4.5 family has successors 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8, each posting fairly modest claimed gains. My own experience w/ 4.6 and 4.7 are that…

May be my tasks are rudimentary but the results I get with the 4.5 model are just the same as 4.7 or 4.6. it's just at the advanced models consume more tokens and and are actually loss making for my work. The incremental changes that they are making are not really that valuable. In fact I have found that even glm 5.1 is giving me something equivalent to what Opus 4.6 gives. Am I missing something that everyone else is cheering for in these small incremental model releases?

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#829

Post by coppsilgold »

The Opus model as usual impresses. Gave it a paper link with bullet point instructions and constraints (while baiting it to perform some mind reading of my intentions) and it implemented production ready code + the requested attack simulations: https://gist.github.com/coppsilgold/00d3cd490cb7f8ffc3fe5c1c...>

The subject is Tardos traitor-tracing codes.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#830

Post by ckarani »

NiloCK wrote: post #77

A rambling comment: I think this is the first time we've had a third minor version bump on a frontier Anthropic model. (I count the 0.5s as major here, because they've been issued non-sequentially and also corresponded to massive capability leaps, eg, Sonnet 3.5, Opus 4.5). So now the Opus 4.5 family has successors 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8, each posting fairly modest claimed gains. My own experience w/ 4.6 and 4.7 are that…

[dead]
Post reply on HN